The Language of Law: Words as Instruments of Power and Order
Law is not merely a system of rules; it is a system of words. Every statute, every contract, every court ruling is carried by language, and within that language lies both the promise of justice and the potential for manipulation. The use of words in law is not accidental but the product of centuries of evolution, cultural exchange, political struggle, and institutional design. To understand the relationship between law and society, one must understand the role that words play in constructing, enforcing, and sometimes obscuring justice.
The Historical Roots of Legal Language
The peculiarities of modern legal language—often criticized as "legalese"—are not random quirks but historical remnants. In the English-speaking world, this history is layered and complex:
-
Anglo-Saxon Foundations: Before the Norman Conquest of 1066, English law was expressed in Old English, with words tied to land, kinship, and custom. Law was embedded in local traditions, orally transmitted, and reinforced by communal memory.
-
The Norman Influence: The conquest brought French as the language of the ruling class and Latin as the language of the church and scholarship. For centuries, English courts operated in French or Latin, embedding foreign vocabulary into legal practice. Words like plaintiff, verdict, jury, and estate trace their lineage to this period.
-
Law French and Legal English: By the late Middle Ages, a hybrid dialect known as "Law French" emerged, eventually giving way to English infused with French and Latin legal terminology. This created the foundation of modern "legalese," a dialect that was technical, precise, but often unintelligible to the ordinary person.
In Russia, the trajectory was different but parallel. Rooted in Old Church Slavonic, Russian legal language drew heavily on the civil law tradition of Europe. It absorbed German and French legal terminology during modernization under Peter the Great and subsequent reforms, while the Soviet era layered ideological vocabulary onto the language of law.
In both traditions, legal language evolved into a professional dialect—formal, complex, and exclusionary. It became a language not just of communication, but of power.
Semantics, Pragmatics, and the "Troubled Waters" of Law
One of the frustrations ordinary citizens face when dealing with legal systems is the feeling that language is being manipulated. This is not just paranoia but a reflection of the difference between semantics and pragmatics:
-
Semantics is the literal, dictionary meaning of words.
-
Pragmatics is how those words function in context, carrying implications, intentions, and strategies.
When a corporation argues that a merger produces "efficiencies," the semantic meaning suggests a technical improvement. Pragmatically, however, critics may see this as a rhetorical cover for market consolidation and reduced competition.
Legal language often straddles this divide. A statute may use the word "reasonable," yet in court, "reasonable" does not mean what it does in everyday speech. It becomes a term of art, defined through precedent and interpretation. Similarly, the word "person" in law can mean an individual, a corporation, or even a state—semantic expansion that grants legal subjectivity to entities beyond human beings.
This duality allows legal language to serve two purposes at once: precision and obfuscation. On one hand, it provides the exactness necessary for enforcement; on the other, it creates room for interpretation, loopholes, and defenses that can shield those skilled in navigating "troubled waters."
The Exclusionary Function of Legal Language
By its very nature, legal language creates insiders and outsiders. Those trained in the system—lawyers, judges, legislators—possess the "keys" to interpret its specialized vocabulary. Ordinary citizens, even those affected most directly by legal outcomes, are often left dependent on professionals to "translate" the law.
This exclusionary function is not purely accidental. The opacity of legal language reinforces professional authority and institutional hierarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, for example, is not just a reference tool; it is evidence of a parallel universe of meanings where ordinary words carry extraordinary weight.
The same dynamic exists in Russian, where the distinction between zakon (written law) and pravo (justice, fairness) demonstrates a philosophical split. Here, too, language mediates the gap between the spirit of justice and the letter of the law, often leaving citizens caught between the two.
Law, Words, and the Question of Power
At its core, the law is not only about justice but also about power—who has it, how it is expressed, and how it is constrained. Words are the medium through which this power flows.
-
In Common Law Systems: Judges wield words to set precedent, shaping the law through interpretation. Language here is dynamic, flexible, and adaptive, but also unpredictable.
-
In Civil Law Systems: Legislators wield words to create comprehensive codes. Language here is systematic and precise, but also rigid, sometimes incapable of adjusting to unforeseen realities.
In both cases, words are not neutral. They reflect political choices, cultural traditions, and social hierarchies. A statute can expand or restrict rights with a single phrase. A court’s interpretation can redefine the meaning of liberty or property. Legal words, once written or pronounced, become instruments of governance.
The Social Consequences of Legal Language
Because legal language is technical and inaccessible, societies often experience a disconnect between law as written and law as lived. Citizens may feel alienated when legal outcomes seem to contradict common sense or when legal arguments hinge on what appear to be semantic tricks.
This alienation feeds cynicism. When governments approve corporate mergers under the rhetoric of "efficiency," when politicians justify policy using vague legal phrases, or when courts uphold controversial decisions by appealing to technical interpretations, people begin to see law not as a guardian of fairness but as a shield for power.
And yet, the power of legal language also lies in its universality. Despite its complexity, it provides a common framework through which societies negotiate disputes, regulate conduct, and pursue justice. Without the formalism of legal words, the rule of law would collapse into arbitrariness.
Conclusion: Law as a Language of Contradiction
Law lives in words. It is simultaneously a tool of precision and ambiguity, a means of inclusion and exclusion, an instrument of justice and power. Its language has evolved across cultures—whether through the French-Latin-English hybrid of common law or the Old Slavonic-civil code fusion of Russian law—always with the same dual purpose: to regulate human conduct while maintaining institutional authority.
Society’s challenge is to navigate this contradiction. On the one hand, legal language must remain technical enough to function, to pin down obligations and rights with certainty. On the other, it must not drift so far from ordinary language that it becomes an impenetrable code available only to the privileged.
The use of words in law reflects the broader tension between the letter and the spirit, between semantics and pragmatics, between power and justice. To study legal language, therefore, is not merely to study words—it is to study the very structure of society itself.
Exploiting the Gap: How Language Serves Power
While legal language developed historically as a means of precision and order, in practice it often serves as a tool for manipulation. Modern corporations and governments have become adept at exploiting the ambiguity that lies between the semantics of words (their literal meaning) and their pragmatic use in context. This exploitation allows powerful actors to frame outcomes in ways that appear lawful, even beneficial, while masking their real intent.
The "Efficiency" Argument
In merger cases, corporations regularly invoke the language of "efficiencies" and "synergies." Semantically, these words suggest lower costs, greater productivity, and benefits to consumers. Pragmatically, however, the reality often plays out differently. Mergers reduce competition, allowing companies to raise prices, cut services, or limit consumer choice. The promise of efficiency functions more as a rhetorical shield than a demonstrable fact. Critics argue that regulators often accept these claims at face value, imposing little burden of proof on corporations.
Redefining the Market
Another common tactic is to stretch or shrink the definition of the "market" itself. Two competing firms may argue that their merger does not harm competition because they are only "small players" in a much larger, loosely defined market. For instance, soft drink companies may argue that their relevant market is not just soda but "all non-alcoholic beverages," making their combined dominance look smaller. This manipulation of words redefines reality, shaping the legal narrative to fit corporate interests.
The "Failing Firm" Defense
The phrase "failing firm" carries a pragmatic power—it conjures images of economic collapse, job loss, and the social cost of bankruptcy. Semantically, however, a "failing firm" may not actually be failing in the strict sense; it may simply be unprofitable or less competitive. By stretching this definition, corporations can justify acquisitions that eliminate rivals under the guise of saving them.
Remedies That Fail
Regulators often approve mergers with "remedies," requiring companies to sell off certain assets to maintain competition. Yet these remedies frequently amount to little more than semantic solutions. The divested assets may not create a viable competitor, and the overall market remains consolidated. The language of "remedy" suggests repair, but pragmatically, it often masks permanent harm to competition.
Government Semantics and Public Perception
Governments themselves are not immune from this exploitation. The reliance on abstract legal terms such as "reasonable," "proportional," or "necessary" grants enormous discretion to regulators and courts. These words may sound fair semantically, but in practice they provide flexible justifications for decisions that favor powerful interests. In international trade disputes, surveillance laws, or antitrust reviews, such terms allow governments to maintain the appearance of legality while pursuing outcomes aligned with political or corporate allies.
The Cost to Society
This exploitation erodes public trust. Citizens witness a legal system where technicalities and semantics appear to outweigh common sense. Instead of protecting competition, innovation, and fairness, the law seems to shield consolidation and concentrated power. Words like "efficiency," "synergy," and "remedy" become not descriptions of reality but tools of persuasion—linguistic weapons that reshape how the public perceives corporate consolidation.
In this sense, legal language operates as both a sword and a shield: a sword to cut through opposition and reshape narratives, and a shield to defend powerful interests from scrutiny. The gap between semantics and pragmatics becomes a playground for those who can afford skilled legal teams, leaving ordinary people caught in the crossfire of words.
